Running Mac OS X On Standard PCs

ZDOne writes "ZDNet's reviews team have been tinkering with the various ways of running OS X on standard PCs. They found that with the right hardware components, a standard PC running Mac OS X Leopard is, at first sight, no different from a genuine Apple Mac. Special CPU extensions such as Intel VT-x provide support for software solutions like Parallels Desktop for Mac. Even Adobe Photoshop, which queries a Mac to verify its authenticity, runs fine on a standard PC thanks to EFI emulation. However the article points out that it's a pretty technical proposition to get OS X running on non-Apple hardware, beyond all but the most powerful power users. And then there is the legal question. Don't even think about trying to put OS X on your PC without first purchasing a legitimate copy of Mac OS Leopard."

MacOS on PCs...

MacOS X on PCs is like Linux on microwaves: it's very cool, and a neat experiment, but I think for most folks, it's not very appealing.

I'm sure the crowd of people who feel the need to upgrade their computer every 5 seconds but like MacOS X otherwise might dig this. I can see this turning/degenerating into a "why doesn't Apple just license MacOS X for PCs?!" discussion awful quick. But just because it's possible doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Re:MacOS on PCs...

"MacOS X on PCs is like Linux on microwaves: it's very cool"

... as opposed to Windows for Microwaves, which keeps your food very cool ;-)

Re:MacOS on PCs...

"MacOS X on PCs is like Linux on microwaves: it's very cool"

... as opposed to Windows for Microwaves, which keeps your food very cool ;-)

Don't forget that Windows for Microwaves brings a whole new meaning to "blue screen of death".

Well some us would upgrade if given the chance

but seeing that only one manufacturer holds the keys to the kingdom and they are slower than shit and don't seem to listen to a lot of the forums what choice will we have other than by going this route. In fact I think the primary reason most of us didn't consider this route is because it was too difficult compared to just putting up with the hardware Apple allowed us to buy.

I am in the camp of needing a Mac Pro for expandability but not wanting one that seems to just exist to list every top end product standard Intel has in its books; yes I see the current Mac Pro as nothing more than a buzzword monster - features included because they sounded good not because they were needed. As such I and those of us on various Mac Forums have been clamoring for a "Mini Mac Pro". Something that uses similar processors and memory of iMacs/Minis but has expansion slots and room for more drives.

Its a big market. There are people sitting on G4s because the cost of moving up is prohibitive. If it takes a new resurgence in clone makers to rattle Apple's cage then I am all for it. If someone delivers a proven working solution then to hell with Apple.

As I mentioned at the start, the real reason most of us didn't go this route is because it was more time consuming than and "annoying" than just putting up with whatever we were allowed to buy. Since the process is getting more "ironed out" and practically turn key I expect a few of us to jump at the opportunity.

Just like we scream that MS has no right to dictate this and that we should hold Apple to that same standard. When they were the little guy we justified it because we could be smug about it deeming pc quality as too low for us. Now that we use the same exact hardware there isn't a real excuse, least one that holds up to any scrutiny.

When did form forever displace function at Apple. Can they get back to function please. Make the "Pro" line all about function - form means little to us, we just want it to work.

But if your time has no value...

...why not just stick with Windows?

Never mind the buying part...

Because even if you pay for it, the EULA forbids you from legally running it on non-apple branded hardware.

http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx105.pdf [apple.com]

Re:Never mind the buying part...

Pirating software has been successfully prosecuted as a crime in most courts in the world.

Breaking EULA's has not.

One is blatantly illegal, the other is doing something that a company you bought something off would rather you didn't do, so has told you is against the undisclosed 'contract' you 'agreed to' when you 'bought' the software.

Re:Never mind the buying part...

Because even if you pay for it, the EULA forbids you from legally running it on non-apple branded hardware.

That's what the Apple stickers that come with your iPod are for...

I went there

Don't even think about trying to put OS X on your PC without first purchasing a legitimate copy of Mac OS Leopard."

Oh, I thought about it...

Re:I went there

It's kind of like breathing, you don't think about it until someone brings it up.

By the way, you are now breathing manually.

Where is the charm?

For the hobbyist and the experimenter, PC hardware is far cheaper than a license of Leopard. No charm in getting pricey OSX apps and software working on a commodity piece of hardware.

It's not technical at all-

Step 1: Visit your local friendly torrent site and find "leo4all.v2"
Step 2: download and burn onto dvd
Step 3: Use Intel hardware. SATA for hard drive if you wish, but use IDE for the DVD rom
Step 4: let the "leo4all.v2" do the rest.
Step 5: there is no step 5

I first started with AMD hardware, and had endless issues (no surprise really, AMD isn't fully supported by OS X) but the switch to intel hardware went much more smoothly.

The system I used was a D945GNT board, with an off-the-shelf nVidia 7300GT. OS X picked up everything but the sound (still working on why, claims it's suported) and for the fisrt time ever, I've had the pleasure of playing with OS X on fast hardware.

Total box cost set me back ~300$ US. Not bad...(mind you, the board and CPU were used)

Apple updates worked fine, as did other software updates, so kudos to the OSX86.org crew for their outstanding work.

Re:It's not technical at all-

leo4all v3 is already out and fixes a LOT of issues.

get that instead.

Hint leo4allv3 leo4all.v3 leo4all v3

Paradox

Don't even think about trying to put OS X on your PC without first purchasing a legitimate copy of Mac OS Leopard.

So buy Leopard before you even consider ever using it? Now that's marketing!

way ahead of you

I'm currently browsing slashdot in Firefox running in OSX 10.5.2 on an Asus P5W DH Deluxe board with an Intel Q6600 Quad 2.4Ghz proc, 4GB RAM, and a DigiRack 002 Pro Tools LE rig. And yes, I have legally purchased my copy of Leopard (I was worried they wouldn't sell stand alone retail copies, since it normally comes with the hardware, but NewEgg had 'em, so now I do).

It definitely takes a lot of tweaks to get right. For example, if my Apple brand USB keyboard is plugged directly into the USB ports on the back of the motherboard, then the machine will not properly wake from sleep. I had to run the keyboard first through a Belkin 7 port hub. That one took me a couple of (frustrating) days (including buying a second video card to rule that out) to figure out.

The Pro Tools/DigiRack had previously only been run through Windows, and although it installed and recognized the hardware OK, I was having problems with playback and crashes until I went back and did even more BIOS tweaking (I think disabling SpeedStep was the key, although I also turned off everything else I could find that said it might automatically throttle the CPU or RAM). Now even that seems to be running smoothly.

Summary: not for the faint of heart, and it could break with any Apple software update, but when it works, it is brilliant.

Market drivers

The usual argument for wanting MacOS X on PCs is that it will foster wider adoption. Most organizations look for multiple sources when buying computers so Apple, being single source, gets locked out of many purchase decisions. But if you look at it from an OS level, most are buying single source anyway. Windows is M$, even Linux will lock you in to a certain extent to a distro once you add in all the applications needed to support a business. I prefer Apple HW with the OS. Apple is comming back with this strategy. Focus needs to be kept on maintaining the real value propositions: "it just works"; "less overhead to achieve secure operation", "pleasing to work with" ...

iGroundhogDay

Here we go...

posts as follows:

"Apple won't release Mac OS because they can't tightly control the hardware"

"That doesn't matter, it's down to the device drivers"

".. but will it run Linux"

"The Mac Book Air doesn't have a removable battery so it's shit"

"Why would you want to run OS-X, the earth is only 3,000 years old"

The Problem With Unsupported Hardware

Disclaimer: I am a Apple user.

The problem with running an operating system (or application software) on an un-blessed platform is that in a real-world environment (e.g. anything not in your home) is that when a patch the next minor update comes along, it is more apt to cause problems (in particular, strange undocumented problems). For instance, if you could get HP-UX to run on competitor hardware, more power to you, but when it breaks, you've got really very minimal recourse and are on your own to get it working again. The same thing goes for Wine... if you run an application, the next incremental change could cause a performance hit, or make the application not run at all, and you'll have significantly less recourse to get it fixed (e.g. ISV knowledge base, community, etc...).

I've seen OS X running on a PC and it seemed to work good enough but you could never rely on it in a corprate environment, and I wouldn't want to give a box like this to my mom because when it breaks, you're really on your own to get it running.

This is a problem when the manufacturer says "We're really sorry, but we didn't certify $PRODUCT (or $OS) for that hardware so support is on a best-effort basis", and it is a even bigger problem when the manufacturer (like Apple) is tempted to, or outright promises to do whatever it can to make the product fail on unsupported configurations.

In any situation, it is nice about being able to tell my boss "I called Dell, a new mobo is on the way" rather than explaining why *my* design failed, or why to save a few grand in licensing or new hardware or plain novelty, I took production down for 3 days. It is fine for your own personal rig, but beyond that, doesn't seem worth it beyond that.

Apple NEEDS a mid-rage head less system the old g4

Apple NEEDS a mid-rage head less system the old g4's and g5 stared at lower price then the $2200 mac pro does.

The mini is over priced for it's hardware and the older g4 one cost $100 less with a real video card And $599.00 for 1gb of ram and DVD / CDRW what a joke and you have to add $200 to get a
DVD / RW and you still only have 1gb of ram and it's hard to open up next to a real desktop.

The imac are ok but the built in screen is not that good and it's hard to open up and only has room for 1 hd unlike the new dell AIO that can hold 2 and is a lot easier to get in to.

But a system at $1,199.00 with only 1GB memory and ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT with 128MB memory is not that good of a price.

Apple needs to be more open to ATI and nvdia video cards in the mac pro and a real desktop as a big number of them use the same video chips and they only have 1 driver set for a lot of cards.

The mac pro at $2200 is over kill for a lot of users and the hardware is over the top with alot of higher costs from sever / workstation parts that are not needed.

Most office uses need a desktop with desktop parts and desktop ram not a over priced laptop in a small case with out screen that you need to force open.

Re:Apple NEEDS a mid-rage head less system the old

Just a quick note. You have a lot of assertions, but I bet Apple has a lot of formal studies on what the market wants. While you may want a given machine and while a lot of people on Slashdot may want it to, that doesn't mean it is the most profitable hardware niche for Apple to enter next. They've been doing pretty well so far. Their latest, the MacBook Air is something I don't want and most people on Slashdot think is useless junk. It's also been sold out in many locations for about 6 months now.

As a second note, your assertions about desktops versus laptops is well, not the way the industry is going. For office use and home use, the desktop has been slowly dying for several years now.

Violating the EULA

So ZDNet had just publicly confessed to the mother of all EULA violations, and done so to the most litigious of computer companies. Just what do they think is going to protect them from a massive lawsuit?

The price and the product line

The price is high, but the limited product line makes the high price for Macs a much bigger problem.

This low market share is often attributed to the relatively high prices of Apple computers.

They're only about 40% more than comparable PCs, and sometimes less. But if you are looking for a conventional desktop then the "entry level" is over two grand.

Yes, I've heard all the arguments about how an all-in-one provides a better "experience", and how you don't "need" the expansion slots, and for people who like the iMac ... I'm happy for you, fellas, I really am. But most people buying home computers don't buy a set-top style box like the Mac mini, or an all-in-one like the iMac, they buy a mini-tower or fat slab with expansion slots, drive bays, and room to grow. Whether they USE it or not, that's beside the point, that's what they buy. Companies look at Apple's high margins and come out with "iMac killers" and "Mac mini killers" and, well, they don't STAY on the market. Now I suppose they could just be selling out and they don't want to cut into their less profitable lines, but I suspect that they just don't sell well.

People aren't buying Macs because of the hardware "experience", they're buying them because of OS X, and they're often buying them despite the hardware "experience".

The cheapest Mac that really competes head-to-head with the average PC, on a hardware level, is the Mac Pro. For the rest of the line, you have an all-in-one with almost no upgradability, and a crippled desktop with even less than the all-in-one (the putty knife problem). Now I will go along (for the sake of argument) with the claim that mostly don't upgrade their PCs, but even granting that the reason is that you can generally get any combination of stuff you WANT in a PC, because there's so many of them. Apple can't do that, upgrades are the only route to fine-tuning the box, and Apple doesn't even let you upgrade the one thing that's top on people's list of upgrades these days... the video card.

And in the mini, you can't put a full sized hard drive in there, you're limited to low power low performance laptop drives, or higher latency external drives.

The mini, currently, may be the MOST overpriced Mac. For $600 you get a 1.83 GHz dual-core CPU, 1GB RAM, 80GB 5400 RPM hard drive, and Intel integrated graphics... and firewire 400 and wifi. For $300 from HP you get a 1.8 GHz dual-core CPU, 1GB RAM, 320 GB 7200 RPM hard drive, and nVidia integrated graphics, but no wifi or firewire.

Well, you may say that the small size, the wifi, and the firewire is worth $300.

But you can't upgrade the mini to match the specs of the entry level HP for any amount of money, and adding wifi and firewire to the HP costs you $30 from HP and about $20 from Fry's.

So, setting aside the size, after upgrades, the Mac mini is 70% more expensive, and you have to give up 3/4 of your disk, you get a much slower disk, you get a USB port that can't even charge an iPod Shuffle, you get a far inferior graphics chip, and to get no "comfort headroom".

The size? If that mattered to most people then you can bet HP would have an "a6400z mini" out there. They're not going to leave money lying on the ground. The hardware "experience" doesn't move boxes.

Apple has to sell Macs to people for whom Apple's hardware is a huge stumbling block. Buying a Mac is like buying a car... and finding the only options are a decked out luxury SUV, a souped up Civic, or a motorbike.

They're selling laptops like mad because everyone's laptops have the same kind of limitations that APple imposes on all their computers, but desktops are languishing because they're simply not in the race for most people.

Re:Pre-empting the fanboy spin

Not if you put an apple sticker on your PC!

Re:Pre-empting the fanboy spin

You're breaking the EULA

Wooooah, nooooos! I'm breaking the non-negotiated post-sale meaningless contract!

Re:Legality?

Personally, I don't recognize EULAs as legitimate contracts. If they want me to enter into a contract, then they need to negotiate it with me PRE-SALE!

I do, however, recognize their copyright. So I'll buy a copy to respect copyright, and then install it wherever I damn well please.

That said, I'm not above copyright infringement either. The RIAA will not see a penny of my money.

READ CAREFULLY. By reading this post you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies (âBOGUS AGREEMENTSâ) that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.

That ought to hold up in court, eh?

Re:Legality?

Pirating software has a long history of being successfully prosecuted through the courts of most Western countries.

Enforcing EULAS does not.

Just because Apple says you can't do what you want with the software you have bought doesn't necessarily mean it is not legal to do so. However it most certainly is illegal to install pirated commercial software.

Think about XP SP3 for a second

I believe their hardware could stand on its own merits and the additional revenue and marketshare couldn't hurt.

Microsoft just had an XP SP3 disaster when on some machines with AMD based motherboards the system would endlessly reboot. I have no doubt MS did test this on AMD processors. The problem was that some motherboard makers and vendors improperly used both the intel and amd power management kernel mods simultaneoulsy. This did not show up for 10 years, and SP3.

Apple wants to control the experience. They want to spec high values of hardware. And they don't want to support mutt-hardware and end up like SP3.

What's the number one frustration in calling ANY tech support hotline. Well if you have more than one vendor in the chain then vendor A says it's a graphics card problem, and Vendor B says it's a operating system problem. Meanwhile it's actually a mouse problem because the logitec mouse drivers over wrote some dll the video card was expecting to be an older version.

  Not only does no one claim responsibility but they really can't because they don't control it all like apple.

So you pay a tad more for a pleasant experience. Savvy apple folks know which things to buy from apple and which to do themselves. e.g. don't buy apple memory upgrades, but perhaps it may be worth it to buy an apple WiFi (since the system will then handle all the firmware updates for you, and things like optical audio, remote disk mounting over the WiFi will all happen magically and reliably).

As for this latest EFI spoof. Apple, as evidenced by the lack of DRM on their OS and the vulnerable DRM on itunes, tries to use the speedbump model for DRM rather than the Steel Vault model. Any time people start abusing one of their DRMs they tend to issue some new software update that goofs up the current way of gaming the system. Basically a nuiscance which at some point becomes not worth dealing with for the majority of people.

I would predict they have a long road of nuiscance planned for EFI crackers. They only need to plan about 5 years worth of them, because in 5 years there will be new hardware nuiscances that spwan a whole new list of software nuiscances.

Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second

I would predict they have a long road of nuiscance planned for EFI crackers. They only need to plan about 5 years worth of them, because in 5 years there will be new hardware nuiscances that spwan a whole new list of software nuiscances.

I agree about the 5 years, but for a different reason:
Considering how much progress in user-friendliness Linux has made in that time, I guess it will catch up to the Mac OS X of today in another five years. So either Apple has something new and shiny by then, or cracking OS X will be pointless for most purposes.

Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second

Indeed. I've got a MacBook Pro as my main computer, and an AMD dual-core 4200+ computer in my living room running Windows.

Yet, I prefer Linux as far as the user experience goes. But I don't even have a Linux partition. Why?

It's the apps.

I'm a documentary director so I got the MacBook Pro because I can use it as a monitor and I can use Final Cut Pro. Sony Vegas for windows is good, FCP is better. To date, there is no native GNU/Linux solution that matches the power, stability, and functionality of Final Cut Pro. It has saved me time and energy and has produced some amazing footage. I bought an entire computer and operating system simply for the functionality - FCP, for me, is the Mac killer app.

But I'd rather run FCP on Linux, if I could.

What about that Windows PC? Well, if you must know, I'm addicted to PC games. Half Life 2, Oblivion - waiting for Fallout 3... I'd rather play them in Linux, but WINE performance and stability isn't acceptable yet. There, games are the killer app.

Now, if I wasn't a gamer, and I wasn't a movie maker, I would absolutely love to use GNU/Linux as my only OS. If I need to run a Windows program, I don't mind doing it in virtualization.

The problem is that games typically don't work, or don't work well, in virtualized environments. Neither does video editing software (which is why I have no desire to run a virtualized MacOSX - what am I going to use it for if it renders video at a turtle's pace?)

GNU/Linux is at a strange place in it's adoption cycle, and this is a real concern: By the time you are savvy enough with computers to think outside of the marketing and go with Linux as an easy, usable operating system that does everything a beginning user does - you're no longer a beginning user and probably have some application - productivity, gaming, whatever - for which there is no Linux equivalent.

So long as the GIMP remains substandard compared to Photoshop (with poor typography support, bad CYMK profiles, etc.) you won't see graphic artists considering Linux. So long as Cinelerra remains substandard compared to Sony Vegas and FCP (with poor stability, complex user interface, no 24p support) you won't get the video guys. So long as gaming continues to be a hassle on Linux, you won't get the gamers.

That's the bad news.

The good news is that all of these problems - all of them - can be solved simply through software development - the one thing the GNU/Linux community is extremely strong at. If you want to work towards GNU/Linux adoption, work on developing GIMP or Cinelerra. Get together a group of buddies and work to tackle problems as a team.

I wish I was a programmer but I lack the skill. I know where I would focus my efforts.

Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second

Apple wants to control the experience. They want to spec high values of hardware. And they don't want to support mutt-hardware and end up like SP3.

I wouldn't exactly call AMD mutt-hardware...

Interestingly, the hardware control Apple exercises that you say is a good thing is exactly what bothers me with Apple. I know people hate hearing this, but I feel like Apple's operating systems are a cop-out. Sure, everything looks nice and just works...because they spent several months working on a single piece of hardware (which is often no longer on the bleeding edge). And the support is likely no more than a series of kludges, just like in Microsoft and Linux operating systems. Where's the ability to use brand-new hardware? Where's the ability to make whatever modifications you wish to the computer and then simply download a driver for it (easily, I mean)?

Yes, I know Linux often has trouble supporting new hardware, but that's simply the nature of open-source: things take time. But Linux is also free. Apple is proprietary and expensive, and Microsoft is able to support a vast array of hardware and Windows compared to Mac's tiny amount (partially because the vendors are biased towards Microsoft in making drivers, but I don't see Apple encouraging them for the above reasons).

Given all this, I don't understand why people insist on hacking the Mac for use on PCs. Why not use Linux? Even on bizarre hardware this would give a more pleasant experience.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

They dont want that nightmare. the PC can be a mishmash of really bad hardware. I have fixed many PC's by removing that new Winmodem or USB card that someone bought and installed themselves. Crap ram causing random crashes, and the 65,000 different motherboard makers some work some are crap (I'll never buy PCChips and MSI again) and attaching OSX to the non-stable world of PC is something that jobs and Apple does not want.

They want to give you an "experience" and no not the experience that the Pc world offers.

Look at the fight that Linux has, OSX would have the same fight.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

Ok, Where can I buy a PC that is as small and quiet as a Mac Mini or Apple TV?

There is currently, no such equivalent.

For now, I will stick to my Ubuntu running AppleTV. It has digital audio and video out, and casts $250.

But if you have a suggestion, go ahead.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

Indeed, there are no PC equivalents. Therefore Apple should just liscense out the OS and people should still buy the Mac Mini in droves because it's small, low power, and quiet.

OR, they may be afraid of the truth: that a huge number of consumers buy the Mini because it's the cheapest Mac and given the option would be a slightly larger, louder, but faster tower in a heartbeat?

It's weird how zealots will claim that Apple's hardware is the be-all and end-all of computing equipment but simultaneously declare that licensing OS X to third parties would destroy Apple.

The truth is that Apple makes a wonderful OS. Their hardware is stylish, overpriced, and has too many gaps in their lineup. Licensing OS X probably would result in a dramatic drop in Apple hardware sales simply because: Apple's hardware is not market competitive. On equal footing, with the same software, many fewer people would buy their machines.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

When Apple does an update, the MBs and MBPs are usually pretty competitive pricewise. The problem is that most people don't need all that a Pro has to offer and can get by with a $400 laptop. I'm on a SR MBP now, and when pricing dells or Lenovos with the same features they were always within $100-$200 of the mac.

The problem is that Apple doesn't lower the prices of their machines over time, so if the machine hasn't been updated in awhile then the value does indeed suck.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

Which is why people should just use http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/ [macrumors.com] live with it and stop complaining. Just wait until it updates and buy. Sure it sucks that Apple don't adjust prices, but there is nothing to do about it.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

You really hit the nail on the head.

When Apple does an update, they tend to be using top-of-the-line, bleeding edge hardware. When you compare a freshly-updated MBP to other notebooks, the price/performance ratio is usually in Apple's favor, or very, very close to it. Apple makes their profits when parts prices fall, because they keep their prices the same. Near the end of a product's refresh cycle, Apple products look like horrible deals. Near the beginning, they're quite competitive. Unfortunately, people tend to remember the bad and spout off their vitriol even when the Apple machine is a perfectly good deal.

And then, as you alluded, there's the issue of options. With Apple, you just don't get very many. Even though OS X would probably run fine on a budget notebook, Apple doesn't offer budget products. It probably works in their favor--companies usually have fairly slim margins on their budget lines, and there are plenty of people who buy Apple computers simply to get OS X.

re: Eur 1800 for a webcam??

It's pretty obvious you've got a strong dislike for Apple -- and I have to think it goes beyond a simple, logical comparison of system specs for the money.

I've used quite a few HP laptops, and frankly, I'd never be caught using another one, if I could help it. I'd gladly pay a premium for the Apple-branded notebook, vs. dealing with what comes with an HP purchase.

1. Unless things are different in other countries, Apple tech. support is WORLDS better than HP in the USA. When I contact HP, I typically have to wait about 48 hours for an email response from some 1st. level technician who just quotes obvious nonsense from a checklist. Why email, and not phone? Because calling HP results in over an hour wait time on hold, as a rule, only to wind up with another clueless response.

2. Apple is far more conscious of "design" than HP. Apple notebooks have a bare minimum of plastic doors, sliding trays, and the like which tend to break/snap off. Even the CD or DVD drives on them are slot-loading, so you don't have a big drive tray sliding out the side of your notebook, requiring extra free space around it and potentially breaking. The 17" Macbook Pro and Powerbook before it were thinner and lighter-weight than anything 17" HP had to offer, too. And don't forget Apple's "mag-safe" AC adapter. That's one more great idea, especially when I see how many HP and other laptops are out of service due to loose/broken AC power jacks!

3. OS X, in my opinion, is a FAR less trouble-prone environment to use, day-to-day, than anything else offered for PCs. I can't run a legal and officially-supported OS X environment on non-Apple hardware right now. So essentially, even if Apple hardware costs me a premium, I understand that paying it helps support and subsidize further OS X development and improvement -- and to me, that's a good place for my money to go.

Re: Eur 1800 for a webcam??

You are forgetting a few things. You have the motion sensor piece that everyone was turning into Apple Light Sabers. I have also seen this used as a type of motion alarm so that you can turn your back on your MBP and it will scream if someone tries to move it.

You also forgot the light sensor that can see how dark it is in the room and adjust the screen and keyboard backlight to adjust for it.

Then there is the fact that they keyboard even has a backlight that shines through the letters rather than squinting and trying to read the cheap painted keys by the light of your LCD. Then there is the part where your paint won't wear off your keyboard because they didn't use paint to label your keys.

Oh yeah...you also forgot the physical construction of the thing is both lightweight and stronger than the typical laptop. Most of those plasticy crap lids you can put slight torque on the corners or press on the back and see the LCD distort. This tells you that if you tap the stupid lid wrong you are likely to break the LCD. A nice sturdy frame for it means it is far less likely to have issues. (I have seen this type of better construction on a few PC laptops, but it is most certainly not a standard).

I used to think Macs were just overpriced nonsense based on fancy branding. After playing with a MBP for a while in the store I realized that they actually have a ton of better design in the hardware. If you just compare CPU/RAM/etc then yes a PC is cheaper, but if you compare the whole system and all of its hardware design the Mac is a far better deal.

Re: Eur 1800 for a webcam??

A few things:

1. "Faster and cheaper" wins every time, only when it's also reliable! (EG. Apple moved to Intel because despite every effort, they couldn't get either Motorola or IBM to consistently improve on their product offerings in a timely manner. It was already proven that Intel CPUs are reliable, so that PLUS faster and cheaper made it a good move.) It does a person no good to have something that's "cheaper" and supposedly "faster", but is breaking down constantly.

2. My experience with AppleCare has been FAR superior to anything I ever received from Dell, HP, Gateway, or other PC vendors I've had the displeasure of dealing with. Yes, Apple systems are "proprietary", in the same sense that a Playstation game console is proprietary to Sony, or the XBox 360 is proprietary to Microsoft, or a Sun workstation was proprietary to Sun. That business model has its pros and cons, but it's the de-facto ways computers were ALWAYS sold, up until a bunch of different people decided to build "PC clones" running the same default operating system. I know my hold times calling Apple have averaged around 5-10 minutes, as opposed to 45 mins. to 1 hour with everyone else. I know I've always reached a person who speaks my native language clearly and effectively with Apple. I know that when I have sent in a Mac for warranty work, they've gone over and above what was promised or "covered in writing", replacing any dented or scratched casings, loose hinges, etc. etc. What makes you think Dell or anyone else will give you great support for old, out-of-warranty systems of theirs, anyway? Like Apple, they'd rather just have you buy a new model, too.

3. I'm not going to get into the big, raging "Windows vs. OS X" debate, other than to say one thing. Currently, you can poll Mac users and then poll Windows users on how often spyware has crippled their machines. You tell me who suffered the biggest productivity losses.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

Powerful, maybe. But have you seen the video of those clones? It sounds like a jet taking off!

Apple has a big hole in their lineup, IMHO. That is the mid-sized tower... basically a headless iMac. Apple should just sell one - I don't think it would be too expensive... their other products compete quite well with similarly-spec'd PCs.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

yeah, that's one company's very cheap clone boxes.

If decent sized manufacturers got in on the deal (and they would) then apple would find themselves significantly undercut with equal quality (though less shiny) machines very quickly.

Of course they may not lose much in the way of business, as "shiny" seems to be one of the main reasons current customers buy Macs.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

It's usually pretty hard to configure a machine with identical specs to the Apple, but I did my best.

Apple MBP $1999
Dell Inspiron 1525 $1428.
The Dell is missing dedicated graphics, includes 50GB more hard drive space, and has a higher capacity battery.

Apple MBP $1999
Dell XPS M1530 $1602
Dell has 50GB more hard drive space, higher capacity battery, and a fingerprint reader. Otherwise, as far as I can see, the specs are identical.

When this line of MBPs came out, they were competitive. But Apple won't drop their prices as components decrease in price (it's where they make the bulk of their money!) while Dell does. So right now, you can get an equivalent Dell for almost $400 less than the MBP, and it's got better specs in a couple of areas.

Of course, whether or not this is competitive is pretty subjective.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X

Apple is a lot like Intel before AMD came along. The Intel mantra was, "You'll get your faster chips when we are ready to give them to you." Apple likes to time system upgrades to when Steve Jobs can introduce them at large, regularly scheduled, Apple gatherings. But improvements in the market march one regardless of the Apple timetable. How long did it take to get the excellent Nvidia 8800GT in your Apple system? How often is faster+cheaper+larger available from someone else? Will Apple ever sell a BluRay writer even though they were an early member of the BluRay camp? You get the idea.